Natural disaster relief

Originally posted by whodey
Such as?

I think the federal goverment should spend more in some areas and less in others. Some of the areas of the war on drugs are a waste. Some of the corporate welfare is a waste. Some of the military expenditures are a waste.

Originally posted by moon1969
Your opinion is meaningless. Fortunately, our country is majority rule. And it is the majority who has the biggest impact on our lives and that of our families. Again, I am very glad that you and Norm are not in the majority. Freak fringe people like you and Norm have little effect on the country and our families, thank goodness.

Your opinion is also meaningless. The masses also elected the likes of Hitler, the great progressive. So what?

Originally posted by moon1969
Your analogy does not make sense. FEMA gives coverage for avalanches to Eskimos, hurricane coverage for the Gulf and Atlatntic coast, tornado coverage for the Great Plains, and so on.

It is a stated goal of the federal government to share the risks for the respective natural disasters in the various regions of the country. This is stated and done b ...[text shortened]... cally in natural disasters, whether or not we reside in that region the natural disaster occurs.

You actually think the federal government can INDEMNIFY disasters? How does the President, or Congress do that when the great majority don't have as much knowledge of insurance or underwriting as a common property and casualty agent like I used to be.

Tell you what. I challenge you to go to your State regulatory agency and take the licensing test for Life and Health, and Property and Casualty. Do so with, or without the mandatory educational requirement. Less than half taking those test pass, many with advanced degrees in other areas.

Your postings display not uncommon ignorance of insurance, but misconceptions common to the general public.

Originally posted by moon1969
I think the federal goverment should spend more in some areas and less in others. Some of the areas of the war on drugs are a waste. Some of the corporate welfare is a waste. Some of the military expenditures are a waste.

Funny how the democrats never seem to get a around to doing anything about this spending when they are in power.

It makes good demagoguery, however.

Originally posted by moon1969
Norm, I am just so glad that you are in the freak minority, and your ideology and politics will never be in the majority. Thank goodness for our country and our families.

I am so glad that your opinion is not reality, but I'm glad you have the opportunity both to have it and express it.

Originally posted by whodey
It's not about paying for it, it is about our "right" to it.

You well know that consecrating anything as "right", makes it easier to disguise blatant favoritism to friendly political allies. Who in government worries about paying for anything. Just warm up the printing presses. The presses must be overheated, cause no they seem intent on coining small denominations.

Originally posted by normbenign
You actually think the federal government can INDEMNIFY disasters? How does the President, or Congress do that when the great majority don't have as much knowledge of insurance or underwriting as a common property and casualty agent like I used to be.

Tell you what. I challenge you to go to your State regulatory agency and take the licensing test for L ...[text shortened]... s display not uncommon ignorance of insurance, but misconceptions common to the general public.

I know more than you think, and the massive scale of the federal government and its unheralded access to funds put it into a regime of its own, and with the statistical and indemnity issues applicable to private entities inapplicable. You show you ignorance in not understanding that. Simple math. Scale.

Originally posted by whodey
Funny how the democrats never seem to get a around to doing anything about this spending when they are in power.

It makes good demagoguery, however.

What demogoguery are you referring to? I only responded to you pressing about federal expenditures I did not agree with. Further, it is you who has been spouting demagoguery thoughout this entire thread.

Originally posted by normbenign
I am so glad that your opinion is not reality, but I'm glad you have the opportunity both to have it and express it.

Same to you, and your opinion is really harmless as you are not in the majority, and generally well outside of the mainstream. You voted for Ron Paul in the Republican primary right? And where were the Paul delegates at the Republican convention? Impact? Nada.

Originally posted by normbenign
"Coverage of massive widespread amounts of personal loss not covered by personal insurance should be decided by the political process on an ad hoc basis. in advance"

It looks as if the final two words "in advance" were added as an afterthought. Doesn't that conflict in reality with "by the political process on an ad hoc basis."?

Would not that make government aid, subject to political favor?

You are right it was an afterthought and I didn't punctuate it correctly. i should have said more about it.

When I say "in advance" I mean things like emergency response readiness like FEMA is supposed to be. (I don't want to get into local vs state vs federal -- I take this to be a discussion of the role of government in general.) I agree that "ad hoc" and "in advance" seem to conflict but I mean that coverage decisions that can be decided in advance should be, as this would make for readiness to respond and less of a crisis mode. (Maybe I think a crisis mode can encourage more political favoritism than you do.)

For example, a hurricane response plan and necessary resources such as relief supplies and transport capability could be established in advance including selection and training of response personnel, competitive bidding and audit controls, and then the decision whether and when to deploy it would occur depending on the individual situation. I know that's a bit idealistic.

Basically I think a multi-pronged approach to the OP question is appropriate, some private responsibility taken by the individual stakeholder, some taken by the public for the common good.

Originally posted by whodey
What should be considered "massive"? I block, a town, a city, etc.?

That's a judgement call that we delegate to those we elect to office. I don't know exactly how the system works but to my knowledge in the case of some localized disaster in a US state or region, the governor(s) -- with consultation with other state and local officials, is nominal head of the state's disaster response and can appeal to federal agencies for additional help. If you want a no-brainer, non-political procedure for the decision you are bound to be disappointed.

Originally posted by JS357
You are right it was an afterthought and I didn't punctuate it correctly. i should have said more about it.

When I say "in advance" I mean things like emergency response readiness like FEMA is supposed to be. (I don't want to get into local vs state vs federal -- I take this to be a discussion of the role of government in general.) I agree that "ad hoc" and ...[text shortened]... lity taken by the individual stakeholder, some taken by the public for the common good.

We have to understand that humans act based on expectations. If people are repeatedly bailed out of flood scenarios in the Mississippi basin, they continue to go back and rebuild homes that are in areas that will predictably flood again.

Whether before or after, bail outs are going to be politically based, that is how many people will vote for me based on how my legislation helped by situation. This was clear in the political capital Obama used saying that Romney favored a bankruptcy of GM, when in reality that's exactly what his solution was, just couched in different terms. Even the money paid out to 9/11 survivors, begs the question of why other families suffering deaths not associated with such a national disaster are less deserving of attention.

Surely government has a part in mitigating the effects of any disaster, big or small. My argument is that it can't take the role of indemnifying those effected. It would be unfair to those who choose a safe course to make up for the risky choices of others, even if they didn't appear that risky at the time.

Originally posted by moon1969
Same to you, and your opinion is really harmless as you are not in the majority, and generally well outside of the mainstream. You voted for Ron Paul in the Republican primary right? And where were the Paul delegates at the Republican convention? Impact? Nada.

The people in the majority today, will be in the minority tomorrow. I also voted twice for George W. Bush and lived to somewhat regret a lot of things he did.

You'll have that opportunity when Obama's plans blow up more than they already have.

Originally posted by normbenign
We have to understand that humans act based on expectations. If people are repeatedly bailed out of flood scenarios in the Mississippi basin, they continue to go back and rebuild homes that are in areas that will predictably flood again.

Whether before or after, bail outs are going to be politically based, that is how many people will vote for me based ...[text shortened]... o make up for the risky choices of others, even if they didn't appear that risky at the time.

Yes, people build homes thinking that if the house is destroyed by a flood the government will get them a new one anyway.

You majored in psychology, didn't you?

Originally posted by moon1969
I know more than you think, and the massive scale of the federal government and its unheralded access to funds put it into a regime of its own, and with the statistical and indemnity issues applicable to private entities inapplicable. You show you ignorance in not understanding that. Simple math. Scale.

That's why its twin giant "insurance schemes" SS, and Medicare are both nearing insolvency?